How To Tame a Wild Tongue - Essay Example

In order to engage the reader with a topic and understanding, Anzaldua finds it necessary to fully utilize Aristotle’s three strategies of argumentation: ethos, logos, and pathos. As a function of this particular understanding, this brief analysis will seek to analyze and draw inference upon the way in which Anzaldua utilizes rhetoric as a means of proving the points that she illustrates within her essay. Within Aristotle’s definition of the word “ethos”, the understanding and importance of character and the means by which this character is related is ultimately the most important aspect.

Likewise, in seeking to understand the rhetorical means by which Anzaldua utilizes ethos as a means of engaging the audience, the reader need look no further than the fact that she does so not by setting herself up as an exception to the norm but rather by exhibiting her personal story through the likely and believable lens that it is necessarily indicative of a broader human experience. Although Anzaldua places a strong level of focus upon the personal struggle and unique aspect of identity robbery that language is ultimately affected upon her, this close level of analysis does not preclude the means by which Anzaldua’s character is analogous to humanity in general.

In such a way, the defaults that she displays within her argument is born not upon the shoulders of a hero that exhibits a hyper intellects or some other amazing attribute; rather, the strength of her rhetoric buys upon the foundation that it is exhibited within each and every individual. Similarly, with regards to the logos of Anzaldua’s claim, this is clearly exhibited with regards to the sociological and psychological aspects of culture and development that she references within the text.

Although the main point of her essay is to underscore the importance that formative experience has upon identity creation, it is impossible to perform such a task without first seeking to direct a level of analysis based upon the academic understandings of the terms in which she uses. This should not be understood to mean that Anzaldua relies heavily upon an academic interpretation of the experience which she had; rather, it merely illustrates the point that for argument is fully cognizant of the fact that the subject matter in which she attempts to grapple with is ultimately something that can be understood far outside the scope of personal experience.

Finally, the last rhetorical approach that Anzaldua utilizes is with regards to pathos. Aristotle necessarily defines pathos as a means of rhetorical argument in which emotional appeal is utilized. It should be understood from a careful analysis of Anzaldua’s essay that this particular method of rhetorical argument perhaps utilize the most. Typically, arguments that are steeped in pathos have traditionally been understood as necessarily weaker. However, within the case of this particular essay, it must be understood that the utilization of pathos as a legitimate means of which workable argument is not misplaced nor is it overstated.

This is of course due to the fact of the subject matter in which Anzaldua seeks to engage the reader with is naturally one which engenders a great deal of emotion and psychological trauma; both for the writer herself as well as countless other